My own personal theory, but I strongly feel that you must have at least three original members of a band to be able to bill yourselves as that group.

The Stones, thankfully, still fit the bill with Mick, Keith, and Charlie.

The Beach Boys concert I saw in 95 just barely made it, with Carl Wilson, Al Jardine, and Mike Love.

I've seen the Who four times, once with the original four, and then three additional times with John Entwistle. (Is this current version really the Who with just two members? Yeah, ok, but I still think it's stretching it a bit).

One possible exception to me is the Kinks. If you have seen Ray and Dave together on stage, you've seen the Kinks, no matter who was on bass and drums.

I just feel that one member of a band should not be able to go out and take the name with a bunch of studio musicians. Whaddayouthink?

So, is your rule of three actually the rule of two or the rule of one? (scratching head).

Besides, there are FOUR official Rolling Stones (Mick, Keith, Ronnie and Charlie).

Good point. I meant original members of the band. If Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Paul Jones decided to go out and call it Led Zeppelin, I think it would fit the theory just fine, no matter who was on drums.

I understand that Dave Davies, with the stroke, can play guitar.....OR sing.....but not both at the same time.

Saw Ray solo last year, it was a great show.

NEIL HAMBURGER JOKE:

What do the Sex Pistols and Heather Mills have in common?


They both have 3 original members

Is Three Dog Night still TDN without Chuck Negron?





Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-15 05:21 by Edith Grove.

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Three Dog Night still TDN without Chuck Negron?

NO

I love this band and could not understand why they couldn't get it together for good tour.

Funny thing though, of all the hits they have, I believe they have more hits than any band between 1969 and 1972, they did not write one song.

One of my favorites too, Sicilian. I saw them back around '72 headlining a show with Rod & the Faces opening.
One of them (pretty sure it was Chuck) was down & out with the dope for a while. Perhaps that is why they couldn't keep it together. Chuck still tours and the others do as TDN.

I saw Chuck Negron at a free outdoor show in Downtown Buffalo a few years ago and he looked and sounded good. Your correct I think he was recovering from a herion addiction. Corey Wells is from Buffalo and occasionally plays here.

Steely Dan is always Steely Dan... no matter who Walter Becker and Donald Fagen have playing alongside them. But they were always the main 2.

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is Three Dog Night still TDN without Chuck Negron?


No they are 2 dog night.lol.........I love these guys as well.

I caught a couple of TDN shows 5-6 years ago. Very good. I think the two main guys are Danny Hutton and Cory Wells. Yeah I don't know why they would'nt take back Chuck Negron. But in their day they were as commercially succesful as anybody.

I've held a grudge against Three Dog Night for a long time.

In 1972, when I was fifteen, I camped camped out overnight with a friend at the Spectrum in Philly to get tickets to see the Stones. (I can't believe that our parents let us camp out!) The day before tickets were to go on sale, we staked out a good spot right in front of the box office window, . But later that afternoon, they made us move to the side because there was a show at the Spectrum that evening. Three Dog Night, I still remember. And I've never forgiven Three Dog Night for making me lose my great spot on line.

The next morning was pure mayhem. The surging crowd pressed in against the box office window from both sides and in front. And after a person was lucky enough to complete a transaction at the box office window, there was no easy way to get out of the crowd. So people were lifted up, clutching the prized tickets, and passed overhead to the back of the crowd. I was able to get 2 tickets... and they cost only $6.50 back then.

The Stones 1972 show was the best concert I've ever seen, by the Stones or any band. At that concert, the crowd and the arena seemed to be throbbing with intensity as the Stones played. The '72 concert was even better than the show we had seen three years before. Many other Stones fans consider the '72 Stones tour to be their best ever.

I suppose I forgive Three Dog Night... (They are lucky I was able to get tickets.)

Shillid, can you email me? I want to ask you something.
Fred Hardin

schillid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've held a grudge against Three Dog Night for a
> long time.
>
> In 1972, when I was fifteen, I camped camped out
> overnight with a friend at the Spectrum in Philly
> to get tickets to see the Stones. (I can't believe
> that our parents let us camp out!) The day before
> tickets were to go on sale, we staked out a good
> spot right in front of the box office window, .
> But later that afternoon, they made us move to the
> side because there was a show at the Spectrum that
> evening. Three Dog Night, I still remember. And
> I've never forgiven Three Dog Night for making me
> lose my great spot on line.
>
> The next morning was pure mayhem. The surging
> crowd pressed in against the box office window
> from both sides and in front. And after a person
> was lucky enough to complete a transaction at the
> box office window, there was no easy way to get
> out of the crowd. So people were lifted up,
> clutching the prized tickets, and passed overhead
> to the back of the crowd. I was able to get 2
> tickets... and they cost only $6.50 back then.
>
> The Stones 1972 show was the best concert I've
> ever seen, by the Stones or any band. At that
> concert, the crowd and the arena seemed to be
> throbbing with intensity as the Stones played. The
> '72 concert was even better than the show we had
> seen three years before. Many other Stones fans
> consider the '72 Stones tour to be their best
> ever.
>
> I suppose I forgive Three Dog Night... (They are
> lucky I was able to get tickets.)




Great story schillid. But it seems like every thing turned out ok. So don't hate Three Dog Night for it.

"It's just some friends of mine and they're busting down the door"

I wonder if Tommy have any plans for The Ramones...

2 1 2 0

Mongoose Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My own personal theory, but I strongly feel that
> you must have at least three original members of a
> band to be able to bill yourselves as that group.
>
> The Stones, thankfully, still fit the bill with
> Mick, Keith, and Charlie.
>
>

depends how many were in the band in the first place and who the 3 original members are. If the 3 Stones members were Charlie, Bill and Keith (or Brian instead if he was still around), it would be a bit of a stretch.

I've no problem recognising the current Who line up as The Who as half the original line up is still there and it includes the guy who writes their songs and their singer.

Mongoose: So Nirvana couldn't be Nirvana since Chad Channing was replaced by Dave Grohl?

JumpingKentFlash

The Stones had been a five-piece for so long, that they haven't felt like a 'group' since Steel Wheels. Their army of back-up musicians now carry the band through much of their onstage material. I'm sorry, but when I say Blondie Chplin grab a guitar - that was it for me. It's now Mick Jagger's Orchestra featuring Charlie, Ronnie, and the lost man - Keef. Sad thing is, Mick's singing on my shows has declined alarmingly since 1999. There are still some moments, but the balance is shifting.

Facing the truth kind of sucks, but it's gonna happen too all of us. At least I stil have my older stuff to enjoy.

JaggerFan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Stones had been a five-piece for so long, that
> they haven't felt like a 'group' since Steel
> Wheels.

Wrong....


> Their army of back-up musicians now carry
> the band through much of their onstage material.

Wrong again....


> I'm sorry, but when I say Blondie Chplin grab a
> guitar - that was it for me. It's now Mick
> Jagger's Orchestra featuring Charlie, Ronnie, and
> the lost man - Keef.

Laughable statements.


> Sad thing is, Mick's singing
> on my shows has declined alarmingly since 1999.
> There are still some moments, but the balance is
> shifting.

It's changing for sure. Did you expect Let It Loose a la Exile when he's in the middle of his sixties?


> Facing the truth kind of sucks, but it's gonna
> happen too all of us. At least I still have my
> older stuff to enjoy.

Live in the past man. If you love it so much just keep doing it.
"You wanna play blind? Go walk with the sheperd. Me? My eyes are wide frickin' open".

JumpingKentFlash

If there needs to be an "official" requirement for a band to be called "original," then perhaps we need to use a percentage figure. How about two-thirds original members minimum to be official? Sound reasonable?

Edith Grove Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If there needs to be an "official" requirement for
> a band to be called "original," then perhaps we
> need to use a percentage figure. How about
> two-thirds original members minimum to be
> official? Sound reasonable?


Perhaps... but then shouldn't there be a veto power vested in a single, formative member? Like John Fogerty and CCR.

with the stones, i dont think you could ever replace mick and keith, but i dont think mick and keith could ever set up on thier own, with backing musicians using the rolling stones name.

> Wrong....

Your articulate response is captivating and full of detail.

> Wrong again....

Again, I'd love to hear more insight on your extensive opinions and knowledge of the subject.

> Laughable statements.

Fair enough. Knee-jerk negating and sonewalling seems to be your thing. Laughable statments? Unfortunately, I wasn't laughing when hearing his messy nnote-bending insted of the sharp rhythms he used to play. But I'm glad your myopically stetching your imagination.

> It's changing for sure. Did you expect Let It
> Loose a la Exile when he's in the middle of his
> sixties?

(finally, a real point)

No, I don't expect that. However, at $350.00 a ticket, I expect him to try his damnedest instead of the off-key honking, vocal short-cuts and non-intimate readings.

> Live in the past man. If you love it so much just
> keep doing it.

If how they play now vs. 30 years ago is living in the past, maybe THEY should take a few pages out of that book.

> "You wanna play blind? Go walk with the sheperd.
> Me? My eyes are wide frickin' open".

Is that signature supposed to be ironic?

well you are wrong jagger"fan"

i saw them twice in 2006 and the backing support was not that pronounced.... and the stones rocked it.. i thought it was rather raw/stripped down...i mean i'm not sure what you are talking bout? and mick jagger sounded in great voice..

It's true, there are some shows this last tour that were good, the occasional great version popping up here and there.

But to deny, after hearing dozens of boots over the last 2 tours, that there is a sharp decline in performace level is folly.

On a good night they may come close to reaching the levels they did in '89/'90. - which in itself is a shadow of their peak period. The ticket prices still get more and mroe inflated though. I don't want to have to brace myself to see if they can get though a song decently or not anymore. But listening to their recent boots induces more wincing than woo-hooing.

I'm not happy about it, don't get me wrong.

i just think you are being very negative...

i was at atlantic city and everyone- i mean everyone- was into the show and thought it was great..


same for the other show i caught at baltimore

so i don't know what you are talking about..

i have the bootlegs too and mick's voice sounds great..

or have you not listened to the soundboard of buenos aires 2-21??? its great stuff!!!!!!!!!!!

at some point you need to cut the band some slack and stop comparing to 1973...

we are in 2007..they are STILL kicking ass...

trust me: if i thought they weren't would i have driven to atlantic city twice!!!!! with my girlfriend and other friends we rustled up..would i have ended up having to spend 2 nights in hotels? of course not

i mean ..and i'm a pretty serious stones fan..

are keith and ronnie as sharp as they could be.. probably not.. but chuck leavell's piano intrustions are not toned down compared to 89-90 or after... the guitars were at the forefront in atlanttic city.. and the backing vocals were not that intrustive and honestly you barely heard blondie....

if there is one beef i would have with the stones current sound its that its missing bill wyman... THAT does suck but its done..


and i mean use me as an arbiter of what a real stone fan feels.. and my girlfriend who had never seen them as what someone who is not obsessed with them thinks..she LOVED it.... just LOVED it man... so mick and the boys must be doing something right?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2007-02-15 19:26 by stoned_in_dc.

I don't think there is or should be any hard, fast rule. Some bands are basically one person and whoever they're playing with, ie Pretenders (Chrissie Hynde), Jethro Tull (Ian Anderson), Lemonheads (Evan Dando), etc. For most other bands that wouldn't work - generally I think there should at least half of the original members and the main creative force (or forces in the case of Page/Plant, Jagger/Richards, etc.).

The singer is usually the hardest to get away with replacing since a voice is a lot harder to imitate than a guitar, plus the singer tends to be out front and be the most recognizable member of the band. But there are exceptions to every rule.

i agree that this is a good rule of thumb.. for most bands it applies but there are exceptions...

i also agree that ron wood is a full fledged stone so there are 4 original stones in the band right now....

stoned_in_dc Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i agree that this is a good rule of thumb.. for
> most bands it applies but there are exceptions...
>
> i also agree that ron wood is a full fledged stone
> so there are 4 original stones in the band right
> now....

He's not an original member, but he's definitely a full-fledged Stone.

Comparing to 1973 - the year I was born in!

Anyhow, back to the subject...

There are four Stones, but only three 'original' Stones (two, if yo want to get really technical about it). These three constitute less than 25% of the musicinas onstage with them. Woddy is a Stone, but without a permanent fifth member they'll always seem... amputated.

Speaking of this... The Who should be called Pete & Roger (Like Page & Plant, but Townsend & Daltrey doesn't have a great ring to it).

Aerosmith - FIVE original members! Number of people performing keyboards and/or harmony vocals... a whopping ONE.

U2 - they hide their keyboardist under the stage for some reason!



Bands still touring with their original line-up

Aerosmith
The Police
U2
ZZ-TOP

Um... that's a pretty short list so far.

according to the rolling stones book ..the big official red one..

ron wood has been with the stones since day one... brian jones and mick taylor do not exist guys!


having said that point noted... i guess ron wood is not an original... but man he's close ain't he...